Florida Power & Light Co. v. Bridgeman

• Citation: 133 Fla. 195,182 So. 911
• Parties: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. v. BRIDGEMAN et al.
• Decision Date: 14 February 1938
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Florida

182 So. 911

133 Fla. 195

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. v. BRIDGEMAN et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

February 14, 1938

Rehearing Denied April 16, 1938.

Error to Circuit Court, Sarasota County; W. T. Harrison, Judge.

Action for wrongful death by Dewey Bridgeman and others, all minors by their next friend, H. R. Bridgeman and another, against the Florida Power & Light Company. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant brings error.

Affirmed on remittitur.

On Petition for Rehearing.

COUNSEL

Patterson, Blackwell & Knight, of Miami, for plaintiff in error.

Henry L. Williford, James E. Kirk, Randolph Calhoun, and John L Early, all of Sarasota, for defendants in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is an action brought by the minor children of Mrs. Pauline Bridgeman, a widow, under the Florida death by wrongful act statutes, sections 7047, 7048, Compiled General Laws of Florida. At the time that Mrs. Bridgeman met her death on November 6, 1934, all of her six children were under twenty-one years of age, and at the time the action was brought none of them had reached their majority; but at the time Mrs Bridgeman was electrocuted, one of her daughters was married, and another daughter married between that time and the time that the action was commenced. All of the children were joined as plaintiffs in this case, but during the course of the trial, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss Jane Bridgeman Rigby, who was married prior to her mother's death, as a party plaintiff. The motion was granted. This left five of the children of the deceased widow as plaintiffs; all of them being unmarried at the time that Mrs. Bridgeman met her death, but one of them, Maud Bridgeman Hawkins, had married by the time this action was brought.

The evidence in this case is conflicting and disputed, but in the main is substantially as follows: On the 6th day of November, 1934, around six o'clock in the evening two automobiles (one driven by a Mr. Alderman and one driven by a Mr. Jordan) collided at the corner of Bahia Vista street and Tuttle avenue, in Sarasota, Fla. After colliding they, or one of them, struck a pole which was situated near the corner and a foot or so from the paved part of the street, breaking it off at its base, but without causing it to actually fall, as it was supported somewhat by a series of wires extending both north and south and east and west.

The pole was owned by the Peninsular Telephone Company, but at the time of the accident it supported a private telephone line and electric transmission wires carrying from 22,000 to 66,000 volts belonging to the Florida Power 3 Light Company (as well as wires belonging to the telephone company). In the accident, Mr. Jordan was injured and was taken by automobile to the Sarasota Hospital.

Plaintiffs introduced considerable evidence to show that the pole was rotten and unfit to be used for the purpose for which it was employed; while defendant introduced testimony to the effect that the heart of the pole was solid and that just the outer layer of the pole was rotten and that the pole was a good one and perfectly suited to carry their lines, and but for the automobile accident which could not be foreseen or anticipated that the pole would not have broken, and that although the pole was broken by the accident the wires held it up.

Some time after the accident, testimony by both sides fixes the time at from fifteen minutes to an hour, Mrs. Bridgeman, a widow, was discovered about a hundred and seventy-five yards from the pole at a point just off of Tuttle avenue. She had come into contact with the defendant's telephone wire which was carrying about 2,300 volts of electricity from contact with the uninsulated primaries also maintained by the defendant company. The wire had fallen to, or very close to, the ground. There were not eyewitnesses to the tragedy, so far as is known. It is difficult to tell from the testimony exactly how long transpired between the time that the cars collided on the corner and the time that deceased came in contact with the wire. Plaintiffs introduce evidence to show that it was daylight and that a crowd assembled at the corner at the time of the accident, but that when Mrs. Bridgeman was found on the wire that it was dark. One of the doctors testified that it would take only a few seconds for the wire to burn the ankle to the extent that it was burned when the body was discovered.

Evidence was introduced by the plaintiffs tending to show that the electric company was notified soon after the accident that wires were down near the place where the cars collided, but that the company did not cut off the electricity for over an hour later when they had discovered that some one had come into contact with the wire; while defendant introduced testimony tending to show that they sent out their employees to find the trouble, and that they cut the wires and shut off the electricity without delay, and that they acted hastily and without negligence as soon as they were notified that a wire was down. They also contended that the plaintiffs' mother would have seen the wire spluttering, if it was on the ground when she came along, and would have avoided it, but that the wire must have fallen on Mrs. Bridgeman, and no time elapsed between the time that they were notified and the time that Mrs. Bridgeman met her death, as she was already dead when they were notified that the wires were down. They do not support this contention with any evidence, however.

While Mrs. Bridgeman's earnings, for part-time work, were comparatively small, evidence was introduced to show that the deceased was a kind and loving mother and that she devoted her entire time to the support and care of her children.

Maud Bridgeman Hawkins testified that she was married, after the death of her mother, on November 16, 1934, and that she was fourteen years old at the time; that the other plaintiffs' ages were as follows at the time of the accident: C.J. was 16; Farley was 13; Dewey was 4; Annie was 6. It was stipulated by counsel that according to the American Experience Table of Mortality that the expectancy of life of a person 36 years of age--the age of Mrs. Bridgeman--is 31.07 years.

The jury was instructed and after deliberation awarded a verdict for the plaintiffs for $15,000. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied.

The defendant contends that its demurrer to the first, second, and third counts of the plaintiffs' declaration on the grounds that no negligence is charged should not have been overruled by the court.

Count 1 of the declaration, after alleging that defendant owned, controlled, and operated certain electric power lines over and by means of which it conveyed in the city of Sarasota, Fla., and supplied the public, for hire, electric power for lighting and other purposes and used wires strung along the streets of said city, and the ownership by the defendant of uninsulated wires and power lines on Tuttle avenue in said city, over which currents of electricity were conducted of a high voltage, then alleged that the defendant on said date negligently permitted an uninsulated wire, charged with a highly dangerous current of electricity, to be exposed on Tuttle avenue in said city, and as a result thereof plaintiffs' mother came into contact with said wire.

The second count of the declaration, in addition to containing the allegations of count one, alleges that the wire was exposed at a point where people passed and repassed and where it was liable to come in contact with such people. Count 3 contains the same allegations as count 2 and in addition alleges that defendant, knowing or by reasonable observance of diligence, could or should have known that plaintiffs' mother or some other person would probably be injured or killed by said wire.

It is our opinion that the above counts do allege negligence on the part of the defendant and are not subject to demurrer on that score. Although those engaged in transmitting current for domestic use are not insurers ( Key West Electric Co. v. Roberts, 81 Fla. 743, 89 So. 122, 17 A.L.R. 807; Stark v. Holtzclaw, 90 Fla. 207, 105 So. 330, 41 A.L.R. 1323), they are held to a high degree of care. See Key West Electric Co. v. Roberts, supra.

In the first count the negligence alleged is that the defendant negligently permitted one of their uninsulated wires, charged with a highly dangerous current of electricity, to be exposed on Tuttle avenue. The defendant has interpreted this court to mean that the negligence charged is maintaining uninsulated wires, and has cited considerable authority to show that wires properly strung on poles and so located that people cannot reasonably be expected to come in contact with them is not negligence, even though they may carry a deadly current of electricity. The defendant has probably expressed the view of the majority of the courts on this question, but it has misinterpreted the meaning of the count. These counts allege that the company negligently allowed these uninsulated wires to be exposed on Tuttle avenue and as a consequence the plaintiffs' mother came into contact with the wire and was killed. Curtis, a leading authority on the law of electricity, on pages 904 and 906 of his treatise on the subject states:

'The presumption of negligence is almost universally applied where travelers along a highway come in contact with a wire charged with a deadly current of electricity. The fact that a person while traveling along a highway, is injured by contact with a highly charged electric wire raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the company maintaining the wire. This rule applies to a wire not normally dangerous, such as a telephone or telegraph wire, which in falling comes

...